1 2025:CGHC:9198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 661 of 2025 Arjun Soni S/o Shri Anandram Soni Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Barekel Khurd, Post- Raitum, Police Station- Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Mukesh Agarwal S/o Shri Manoharlal Agarwal Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Vil- lage- Jhalpa, Police Station- Patewa, Tehsil- Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21.02.2025 1. Heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. H-70/2024 by the Learned Session Judge, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund C.G. whereby the learned Session Court has imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the sentence of the petitioner on an application preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Brief facts of the case are such that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned trial court under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 alleging that the petitioner had given cheque no. 400620 dated 22.02.2018 of Rs. 8,00,000/- of Indian Bank Branch, Mahasamund to the 2 respondent for payment towards the repayment of loan amount taken, which when presented by the respondent in his account was dishonored by the bank with a note of funds insufficient and even after the complainant had sent a legal notice the said amount was not paid to the complainant within the prescribed period.On 22.11.2024 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Mahasamund C.G. after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and convicted the appellant for a year of Simple Imprisonment as well as compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2024 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 before the Learned Session Judge, Mahasamund District Mahasamund C.g. along with an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for suspension of sentence which got allowed with a condition that petitioner shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount within 60 days while suspending the sentence of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate court has committed grave error while passing the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 and has wrongly imposed a condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount while suspending the sentence of the petitioner. The learned Appellate court has without following the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and without considering the facts material available on record passed the impugned order, hence it is liable to be quashed. 5. In the case on hand, impugned order of the learned Appellate court does not disclose anything that the learned Appellate court considered whether the cases in the exception or not? i.e. whether it warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine / compensation amount. 6. In those circumstances, the impugned order of the leaned 3 Appellate court is set aside and restored the application filed by the petitioner under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 430 of BNSS before the Appellate court. The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate court on 10th of March, 2025. On such appearance, the learned Appellate court shall reconsider the application afresh and dispose of the same with a fresh reasoned order. Till then, the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court stands suspended. If the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Appellate Court as directed above, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed without recourse of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza